Didn't OP claim to be 5.0 in another thread? Didn't OP claim he is not American and therefore doesn't know ntrp levels in yet another thread? Now he claims to generalize tennis understanding based on ntrp levels. WTF?

Click to expand...

LOL, yes. Between Murray and Tennisean, the IQ of this place is plummeting quickly.

I think understand what he is trying to say. At 4.5, you start getting more pro-like points involving different strategies. You see less mistakes, and there are not as many points that are won off of a failure of execution.

I think understand what he is trying to say. At 4.5, you start getting more pro-like points involving different strategies. You see less mistakes, and there are not as many points that are won off of a failure of execution.

Click to expand...

This is true of moving up and getting better at any level. What OP is saying is that all players worse than him aren't playing "real tennis", which is just setting an arbitrary line that is more arrogant and self-serving than anything else.

This is true of moving up and getting better at any level. What OP is saying is that all players worse than him aren't playing "real tennis", which is just setting an arbitrary line that is more arrogant and self-serving than anything else.

Click to expand...

It is mere conicidence that I am 5.0 when the cut off I described as real tennis is at the 4.5 level.

Below 4.5 is a different sport, with different strokes and completely different tactics.

4.5 is when players begin to actually play a sport that resembles the pro game

This is true of moving up and getting better at any level. What OP is saying is that all players worse than him aren't playing "real tennis", which is just setting an arbitrary line that is more arrogant and self-serving than anything else.

Click to expand...

^^ This.

OP + numerous other troll posts earns MMI a place on the ignore list (with Tennisean).

It is mere conicidence that I am 5.0 when the cut off I described as real tennis is at the 4.5 level.

Below 4.5 is a different sport, with different strokes and completely different tactics.

4.5 is when players begin to actually play a sport that resembles the pro game

Click to expand...

Only because you like to fancy yourself playing something that "resembles the pro game" when in fact, you do not. If you ask a futures type player (i.e. 6.0 if NTRP mattered at that level), they might say the same thing about 5.5 that you are saying about 4.5.

Only because you like to fancy yourself playing something that "resembles the pro game" when in fact, you do not. If you ask a futures type player (i.e. 6.0 if NTRP mattered at that level), they might say the same thing about 5.5 that you are saying about 4.5.

Click to expand...

Exactly ! I would love to see a video of MMI and his awesome 5.0 game. The top D1 player I saw play would say the same about anyone lower than him.

Those guys aren't club pros - they are just bums trying to hustle a buck or two..

Any respectable club with have pros that are at least 5.0 - and many are 5.5. In fact those are basically your pool of guys with that ranking - usually ex D1 college or ex satellite guys.. Sometimes a D2 college guy..

No one really talks about it on this board but my gut feeling is that many of the guys that are 5.0 and 5.5 in the world are guys on the way DOWN. You basically don't get to those high levels without playing competitively while growing up.. Lots of people can learn to play 4.0 tennis. But 5.0 tennis - you need actual talent.

Teaching pros have it tough if you think about it. No one expects the local football coach to be able to throw the ball 60 yards in the air - or for the local basketball coach to throw it down..

But in tennis all the students want to know how big even the shorter asian pros can smack the serve..Teaching pros have to know something about the game AND be able to play it and pretty high level.

What's worse is that the VERY high level guys - the guys that were on the satellite tour or had a cup of coffee on the pro tour don't have that many guys to hit with that can hang with them.. So they can get rusty fast - depending on the area of course..

Click to expand...

Spot on. Excellent points -- not often taken into consideration. The OP's idiocy doesn't even warrant a serious comment.

At first I thought the OP had a point. Maybe tennis is only the real tennis when a pusher can't beat anyone easily like it happens at 3.5 and below. But then I realized Andy Murray is a multiple slams holder.

Hmm that explains it. When I had a 4.5 rating I had a true understanding of tennis. When I got bumped down to 4.0 my understanding evaporated. I now can only understand dinking, hacking and lobs. Life is so unfair.

I don't think the game is terribly different between a 3.0 and a 5.0. The only minor differences are @ the 5.0 level, the game is faster and the rallies are longer. But there's plenty of errors, mistakes, and screaming. Lots of screaming.

Contrast that to chess. My chess UCF chess rating is 800, which means I know that pawns move forward, that's about it. 800 is like a 1.5 in tennis. The difference between me and someone with a UCF of 1600 is HUGE. That is a COMPLETELY different game, in every sense of the word. A 1600 plays with almost no errors And the difference between a 1600 and a 2400, is that both games are played virtually error-free, except the 2400 knows how to end the game with less moves, and make it look beautiful at the same time.

Are there breakpoints where the game is qualitatively different than at lower levels - not just less errors, more winners, higher ball speed, etc.?
I would say there is, and I would say the difference is between those who trained seriously as juniors (with extremely few exceptions) and developed high-level technique and those that did not.
Is a challenger level player playing the same game as a top 20 player? Yes, it is a quantitative difference and on occasion the challenger player may actually win. Similarly, for futures and Open and 5.5 and down to 5.0 to some extent as the players get older. More practice time, better conditioning, being on a hot streak, healing injuries, can make a difference in level. [Let's call these an Educated Player]
A player who (almost always) starts as an adult, works their way up to 3.5, 4.0, etc. can get to be a pretty good player to 4.5 in some instances and may be able to beat a "falling" (as LeeD would say) Educated Player. There is a qualitative difference in their strokes, how they play the game, and how they perceive the game.

I wouldn't go as far as calling sub 4.5 "not real tennis". It's played with the same understanding of rules and quite a few at the high 3.5-4.0 level have and understanding of the game. The difference is that they have limits to what they can consistently execute. They might know basic tactics and setups but at that level they need to improve consistency before they begin to try more complex strategies.

You can blast balls at them and they might know what they are SUPPOSED to do but just can't execute it so they default to a safe bunt play or something.

Yes I'm a 3.0 but I'm pretty good in badminton and I see it all the time. I think it's actually worse there because you have even less time to react. They know what they are supposed to do but they can't execute because they just react and think they have no time.

As for baseball and softball, all I remember is a Sports Science episode where a guy pitched a 95mph fast ball at a thick glass force plate vs Jennie Finch pitch. And that's a girl pitching...

Great reaction above and I guess you can see how the thread has pretty much proven your post in a way. Without knowing you and your play, you can't expect those below 4.5 to trust your viewpoint or to get the meaning without that trust and them being below 4.5. I expect most above that level will understand your point and how it is a reasonable rule of thumb, even though there are always exceptions to the rule.

If they think Nick B. really understands tennis, then what can you say. Just because he like Lansdorp has a great understanding of recruiting, motivation, work ethic, and marketing for earning their success, it doesn't mean they have a great understanding on what you are posting about. Nick even admits it in his book, as does Agassi in his book (in ref to Nick) if I remember correctly. It's like assuming Nick is a great business man based coaching several #1 players, while forgetting he broke the academy twice during it's heyday.

I'm guessing english is not your 1st language, hence the misunderstandings about arrogance. Are you German or around that area? I don't think you intend to insult those below 4.5 so much as to communicate how different the game looks once you have most all of the strokes down solid, with some strengths to play to; and as I mentioned, there are plenty of exceptions on both sides of the line. I've coached several D1 hitters who had quite a limited understanding of anything besides hitting big shots.

I was going to bring up this very same point. I would not be surprised if Rod Cross, the resident tennis physics expert here at TWU, never played higher than a 3.5 or 4.0 level. Rod has more insight into the game than most. John Yandell may have played at a 4.5 level. However, his study and insight to the game is much higher than his level has ever been.
.

I don't think the game is terribly different between a 3.0 and a 5.0. The only minor differences are @ the 5.0 level, the game is faster and the rallies are longer. But there's plenty of errors, mistakes, and screaming. Lots of screaming.

Contrast that to chess. My chess UCF chess rating is 800, which means I know that pawns move forward, that's about it. 800 is like a 1.5 in tennis. The difference between me and someone with a UCF of 1600 is HUGE. That is a COMPLETELY different game, in every sense of the word. A 1600 plays with almost no errors And the difference between a 1600 and a 2400, is that both games are played virtually error-free, except the 2400 knows how to end the game with less moves, and make it look beautiful at the same time.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think tennis and chess and pretty much any open skill sports are pretty similar in this regard. When I started playing tournament chess, I looked up to the 2000s as gods; now, rated 2150, I'm shocked at what a terrible hacker I am, and of course there are those who consider 2400s weak....bottom line, it's turtles all the way down. In tennis, there are guys who'd double bagel me who in turn would get double bagelled by a guy who'd get double bagelled by a guy who etc...now who's going to have the audacity to try to draw the line where real tennis begins?

From personal experience, what I would consider tennis that is fun to watch starts at the 4.0/4.5 level. This is where few people try to end the point in 3 shots from behind the baseline and have no glaring weaknesses to exploit (unless they make up for it with good weapons). Some solid rallies and pretty overt strategic play.

here in germany in fact most are. here you can only call you a pro if you make a lincence at the german tennis federation which includes theory and practice.

Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but I think there are many more rec players and opportunities for them in the US compared to Germany, so it creates a more dynamic situation for pro employment. I think that the USPTA certification requires a 4.0 level apart from certification exams, but it is not 4.5, that was my point.

I was going to bring up this very same point. I would not be surprised if Rod Cross, the resident tennis physics expert here at TWU, never played higher than a 3.5 or 4.0 level. Rod has more insight into the game than most. John Yandell may have played at a 4.5 level. However, his study and insight to the game is much higher than his level has ever been.
.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah , Bud Collins is another good example as another poster pointed out.

I don't think the game is terribly different between a 3.0 and a 5.0. The only minor differences are @ the 5.0 level, the game is faster and the rallies are longer. But there's plenty of errors, mistakes, and screaming. Lots of screaming.

Click to expand...

Are you being serious here? There are gigantic qualitative differences between 3.0 and 5.0 play. To take one example, an overhead smash is a likely winner for a 5.0, and a likely error for a 3.0. To take another, a 5.0 has the directional control necessary to take control of points, run opponents around, wrong-foot, attack the backhand consistently, etc. Attempts to dictate in this way at the 3.0 level will very often result in errors. One more example, a 5.0 expects to hold serve the majority of the time. At 3.0 it's extremely common to hold serve less than 50% of the time, and the service advantage is largely nonexistent. These are big differences I think!

That doesn't mean that there's a magic cutoff point where 'real tennis' starts as the OP suggests. But it's equally wrong to say that the game is generally similar at these vastly different levels...

And the difference between a 1600 and a 2400, is that both games are played virtually error-free, except the 2400 knows how to end the game with less moves, and make it look beautiful at the same time.

Click to expand...

This is also totally wrong with respect to chess. A 1600 does not play "virtually error free" chess, not even close. It's just that the other 1600 players are not able to capitalize on suboptimal moves like 2400 players can. Moves that seem just fine to you (and to 1600 players) are going to look like glaring errors to a grandmaster, because grandmasters see and understand the game in different ways.

Same thing in tennis-- a "solid rally ball" at the 3.0 level may be an absolute meatball for a 5.0. Both games change significantly as the level of play increases.

From personal experience, what I would consider tennis that is fun to watch starts at the 4.0/4.5 level. This is where few people try to end the point in 3 shots from behind the baseline and have no glaring weaknesses to exploit (unless they make up for it with good weapons). Some solid rallies and pretty overt strategic play.

Are you being serious here? There are gigantic qualitative differences between 3.0 and 5.0 play. To take one example, an overhead smash is a likely winner for a 5.0, and a likely error for a 3.0. To take another, a 5.0 has the directional control necessary to take control of points, run opponents around, wrong-foot, attack the backhand consistently, etc. Attempts to dictate in this way at the 3.0 level will very often result in errors. One more example, a 5.0 expects to hold serve the majority of the time. At 3.0 it's extremely common to hold serve less than 50% of the time, and the service advantage is largely nonexistent. These are big differences I think!

That doesn't mean that there's a magic cutoff point where 'real tennis' starts as the OP suggests. But it's equally wrong to say that the game is generally similar at these vastly different levels...

This is also totally wrong with respect to chess. A 1600 does not play "virtually error free" chess, not even close. It's just that the other 1600 players are not able to capitalize on suboptimal moves like 2400 players can. Moves that seem just fine to you (and to 1600 players) are going to look like glaring errors to a grandmaster, because grandmasters see and understand the game in different ways.

Same thing in tennis-- a "solid rally ball" at the 3.0 level may be an absolute meatball for a 5.0. Both games change significantly as the level of play increases.

Click to expand...

You're talking about mechanics. I never said there aren't any differences in mechanics between 3.0 and 5.0 tennis -- there most certainly are. 5.0s do everything better than 3.0s. I said the game is the same. The object of the game, how you win. You hit as deep as you can, as reliably as you can. Don't gift away any points. Don't hit within the service line. Don't make unforced errors. Don't double fault.

All of that is the same. 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 tennis isn't "magical". A lot of TT folks here think its the end all and be all of tennis mastery. They give it WAY too much credit. This is just rec tennis, we are all amateurs. There's not crazy point construction going on in the minds of us rec players.

The only thing that separates low level from high level players are mechanics. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Hitting the ball past the service line four times in a row will earn you a point almost every time, whether you're a 3.0 or a 5.0. There's no magic fairy dust.